CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 10 MP CK 0095

Akhil Bhartiya Gondwana Party vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 30 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, CJ · Vishal Mishra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 27986 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 357 words

Ravi Malimat, CJ

1.

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 26.10.2023(Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.2, in the interest of justice.

7.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent no.3, in the interest of justice.

7.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that the instant petitioner and its selected members be permitted to contest in the forthcoming state legislative assembly elections, schedule to be held on 17.11.2023, in the interest of justice.

7.4. Any other writ which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioners."

2.

Primary contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26. 10.2023 has been passed by giving the reason that there are no office bearers of the Akhil Bhartiya Gondwana Party. Hence Form 'A' and 'B' submitted on behalf of the party cannot be accepted.

3.

Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is the official candidate of the said party and therefore, the rejection of he being the official candidate of the Akhil Bhartiya Gondwana Party is wrong. Various contentions have been advanced.

4.

However, we do not find it necessary to go into the said contentions. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 postulates grounds for declaring election to be void. Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the said Act is to the effect of any improper acceptance of any nomination of a candidate. Under these circumstances, since the election calendar has already been announced and the improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the petitioner constitutes a ground to challenge the election, we do not find it necessary to interfere in the instant matter. The petitioner always has a remedy to challenge the same by virtue of an election petition.

5.

Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.